(04-01-2009 08:12 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote: (04-01-2009 07:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote: If you combine that w/ a national water pipeline, so that floodwater in ND can be shipped to Lake Powell and Lake Mead,
A national water pipeline? Eeenteresting.
So how would this flesh out? Only when there is excess water? Who decides when the water is excess? That floodwater all ultimately drains back into ground or flows into other areas. Also, that water is dirty and poluted, how is it cleaned?
Those are all very important questions.
1. Yes, there needs to be a law that only flood waters will be transferred. Water rights have always been a big issue throughout the history of man, and taking water from unflooded regions (presumably to sell) will eventually steal from those downstream who receive water naturally. Of course we already to this to Mexico from the Colorado.
However, when it comes to floods, as in ND...those floods tend to go downstream as well. Shipping floodwater at the source will save much pain for many people.
2. Flood levels are already defined, although I'm sure it would change to "so many feet above normal" once water becomes a marketable commodity.
3. I would envision a sparse spider web of pipes. It would fconnect only large sources...let the existing waterways take over from there. Anyway, the water gets dumped into rivers and reservoirs, which are also dirty. Then they are cleaned by municipalities.
I have anticipated some of these questions and other consequences such as demographics. To me, when Seattle is flooding, and Dallas is in a drought, it makes sense to try to do something about it. Furthermore, this would be a "stimulus" to the country, and provide valuable infrastructure.
There is a legitimate concern of adding foreign species to new waterways. Zebra mussels, snakefish, all have origins like this, and there are potentially devastating consequences. Some effort at remediating this risk will have to be conceived.